'60 Minutes - TV3 Monday November 30th

The Dr Ekman commentary on the detection of lies on '60 Minutes' - TV3 Monday November 30th 2009, is known as a "subjective opinion", that is it is an opinion only, and that of one person. The equivalent in machine-form is the Lie Detector whose use in court is prohibited in most jurisdictions.

The FACTUAL Team were intrigued that Dr. Ekman's strongest view on Lundy's evidence in court was that he was "not convinced" he was genuine. This was of course qualified by the statement that there was insufficient video evidence for Dr Ekman to conduct a more thorough analysis. We would therefore like to invite the doctor to meet face to face with Mark Lundy and interview him in an unbiased situation.

We were further intrigued by the comment that the New Zealand Police were considering use of the doctors methods, both for their investigators and front-line staff. We note with concern that there are sites on the internet describing Dr. Ekman's views as akin to astrology and palm reading. FACTUAL therefore believe it would be advantageous for the police to conduct similar interviews on the investigators and prosecutors that were involved with the Lundy investigation, in order for the police to trial and evaluate his systems and processes.

The same or similar Lundy videos as seen by Dr. Ekman were also viewed (and more) by Dr. James Howard, a forensic psychiatrist. Howard has treated more than 40,000 psychiatric patients and gave evidence in over 1,000 criminal and civil cases. He writes concerning Mark Lundy - "It is my professional opinion that there is nothing so far which leads me to believe anything other than that Mark Lundy did not kill his wife and daughter, that he does not fit a profile of a killer of this type, and that indeed he displayed all the normal signs and symptoms of grief, depression, severe shock and post-traumatic stress disorder one would expect to see in a normal loving and grieving husband and father..........Let us hope and pray that Mark Lundy will not be the scapegoat in this unresolved police matter"

The above, we agree, is also a subjective opinion. However, his is much, much stronger than the Dr Ekman's. It reinforces our view that such opinions on "lie detection" should continue not be allowed to be heard in a court of law.